Stop promoting such a horrible company man. You're seriously hurting your credibility. My entire team has been watching this channel for years and we're disgusted to see you stoop so low. Keep on suggesting that we tunnel our internet traffic through a company whose sole business model is to sell your browsing data. I mean seriously man? Also, PUBLIC WIFI ISNT RISKY with the advent of the newer protocols. That's based on old fallacies of tech based in the early 2000's. You out of anybody should know this.
Should also be mentioned that drones are VERY cheap while AA missiles are seriously expensive. Not sure Russia (or anyone really) can afford to just chuck $100K-$1M missiles at $500-$1500 drones.
The answer is gun-based AA systems. Russia never stopped developing and deploying them, while the West had to send museum pieces to Ukraine. All that Russia needs to do is adjust existing and develop new radars/radar filters that can effectively detect these drones. Existing radars can be tuned to do it, but this results in a lot of false returns. Meaning that drones can get through while the operators try to figure out what returns are real. This is fixed by throwing computer power at the problem to filter out these false returns quickly in newer radar/radar filters. This doesn't take THAT much processing power to do, chips made 20 years ago can do it. It's just a matter of taking the time to properly develop a system that can survive in a combat environment. Then fitting it to an existing gun-based AA system. In 5-10 years, these drones will be far more easily detected and destroyed than they are now.
@@Crosshair84 I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that cannon-based air defense systems with more capable radar could be a decently cost-effective solution to countering relatively cheap drones, but you say all that like the process of designing/developing/testing/manufacturing/fielding a new weapons system in the russian military is something that just works fine every time with no problems at all...
Its worth mentioning that Turkey's decision to go with s400 and lose the f-35 program was much less about the capabilities of the system, and more about their geopolitical strategy of playing both sides. they want to continue with the backdoor agreement and Syria where Russia mostly leaves them alone in their occupation of the Northern parts.
@@RangerB66gotta do something with new air defense... it's better than shooting down civilian airliners which are the traditional targets of Russian missile systems.
One problem with using air defense over a target as large as Moscow, is that succesfully intercepting a drone means lots of debris over civilians, and even jamming GPS leads to big issues for civilian infrastructure. On the plus side, drones usually have weak payloads that don't cause wide scale damage, and are usually meant as a symbolic attack like the first drone assault on moscow literally targeting the russian flag.
Yes, but a Ukrainian drone being jammed so that civilians are killed/injured is a win for Russian propaganda. Sacrificing civilians to protect Putin is what Russia does.
Drones just aren't what their systems were designed to defend against. Shields were invents after spears. Sword came before armour. Bullets predate bulletproof vests. New defences, possibly even drone based or AI controlled AA guns - will come along eventually. This is how arms races work.
Exactly. I've been saying that the same people making this argument are essentially arguing that a gun can't stop a home intruder since it can't shoot down a fly.
The Russian don't really have the innovation abilities to create those new things, so they'll have to wait until the Chinese can steal the technology somewhere and sell them knock-offs.
but russia already have such systems remember the new german anti aircraft assult vehical thingy that ukrain just got russia also has things like that and good ones but it do seems like they have failed utilize them so far
Drones are only effective because short range gap, after development of fast aviation and long range missiles. As such no one would risk attack on short range (except maybe Russians of Chinese) and so most armies decommissioned they MANPAD's and SPAAG's. But ability to send large number of small aircraft's, what do need come back. Allowed again exploit this gap. But only in case of Middle East and African countries, with limited armament. Even if they armies were relatively modern. But here is the thing! West already did have tons of MANPAD's and SPAAGS, so reactivating them alongside immense knowledge on this topic, allowed them to set modern SHORAD almost immediately! Shaheds perform extremely poor in Ukraine. As easily over 80% is destroyed. And those what aren't mostly hit civilian targets (what naturally are not covered as much), making it more terror device then actual weapon. Ukraine also have clear advantage in drones, despite having less of those. Russian air defense has extremely outdated radars and targeting systems, what can't hit drones effectively. The only reason why Russian army look like prepared is because they didn't remove SPAAG's from service, but only because outdated doctrine.
@@jameshealer1395yet Moscow and the Crimean bridge have still gone kaboom boom pow pow, even though Russia supposedly have these systems. Either the Russians are retarded or it doesn’t exist
The S-75 was designated the SA-2 'Guideline' by NATO during the Cold War. During the Vietnam War, the US was also learning tons about how to jam and attack the SA-2. During LINEBACKER II, the NVN was reduced to volleying large numbers of missiles at B-52s. Of course, the Soviets learned, developed new systems and the game went on. Countering NATO ECM may be one reason the Soviets/Russians invested in so many different systems.
The reason for going with so many ground based system was that the Soviet doctrine, which the Russians continued, always assumed that they would not have air superiority. It was something they would like to have and would try to have, but could not be guaranteed. This means that Russian ground units would have to be able to defend themselves from air attack by themselves. Air attack could come in the form of low, medium, and high altitude threats. So they needed systems that could cover all 3 areas and work together to provide total coverage. Countering one system tended to make an aircraft vulnerable to other systems. So it was very much a team game. The result was a combined air defense that, while not 100% effective, guaranteed that the losses suffered by a peer level opponent would be unacceptably high. Meaning that their opponents would either soon run out of aircraft and pilots or be forced to use their air-resources in sub-optimal ways to keep losses low. So even though the enemy may have ways to make the Russian air defenses less effective, those strategies also made those air assets less effective and less useful. Which is still a win for the Russians. We're seeing the results in Ukraine. Western thinking and tactics just completely fall apart in such an environment. Because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority.
@@Crosshair84 I’d argue we are not seeing western tactics being used in the air in Ukraine. Anti- air defense systems changed their name from SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) to DEAD (destruction of enemy air defense) due to better anti radiation missiles, better EW, and decoy/drone systems. If a truly western approach was applied as in article 5, then 5th gen systems would also be used. As shown by Russia in Ukraine, the S-400 is much less capable than advertised and their numbers of interceptors is lower than anticipated. The smaller more mobile systems are a force to be reckoned with in their engagement zones; however, destroying them after neutralizing S-400/300 systems is rather straightforward: turn your system on and you get taken out. Also, your stance also doesn’t take into account systems entering final pre-production stages. The west has also (if we are talking pooled resources) a MORE effective system than Russia. That’s because all of these systems are made to interoperable with most American or close Allie’s systems. Therefore, you could have THAD/Arrow, Patriot, Nasam, Iron dome, avenger, CRAM, and the newer German 35mm systems. And UNLIKE Russian systems they tend to have an over 80% rate in their latest variants.
@@Crosshair84Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed, only Russians think that way. There are plenty of counters to ground based air defense besides staying away from it. Air launched decoys, EW, anti radiation missiles, etc. The Russians want to counter our air power with GBAD so we counter their GBAD with Suppression and destruction of enemy air defense.
@@nsatodayactually, not having all the NATO equipment might be a plus for the Ukrainians in the Russian Air Defense discussion. Notice how the HARM anti-radiation missiles were largely ineffective against most of the major Russian air defense systems when they were first sent and after a while the Ukrainians gave up on using them, because they lost more aircrafts than targets. They instead resorted to using improvised means to go after the Russian Air defenses, including using HIMARS. If they had F-16s or other NATO SEAD platforms, they might have had some level of success in the early days, but soon enough, they'd have been out of aircrafts, because; 1. NATO SEAD operations are exactly what the Russian integrated Air Defense doctrine was created to counter. 2. This war has shown how quickly the Russians adapt to new threats, it would have helped them modify their Air Defense tactics, just the way they did when the Ukrainians started using HARM missiles and Russia switched to running air patrols with their Su-34 carrying long range R-73 missiles which took out Ukrainian jets long before the Ukrainians could see their enemies.
‘The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct, large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.’
@johnsmith1953x Yes... & the size & H E. Explosive potential of an ACTUAL Bird. [ Small Drones ] Oooh.. ( Blowing out office building windows. ! & minimal damage. NOT @ all affecting RU Military. BTW. I WANT my country, (( The U.S. )) To be the most potent military in the world. Yet nearly depleted. W/ "Just in time" shipping of material. Like a typical grocery store. ( That DOES NOT work in a war against something other than a 3'rd world country) Go ahead... Send more BILLIONS of $$ TO What's left of the handful of non trained, { 3 Weeks trained, (( Well documented)) NAZI's Who started heavily Shelling & Killing the Donbas region Over. 8 years ago ! { Besause they identify & speak Russian. & What are the odds of the sitting President & family deeply involved in businesses of which they have ZERO Skillset "Opperating"... & Desire to insight a WAR w/ China. Meanwhile ALL Experienced combat operators are Long gone. W/ little more than Volenters to start an amateur tennis club. (( That Litterly Can't pass the most basic physical requirements !! )) Hey , Brilliant move... It's Hillarious that those that pushed this AGENDA actually believe they are safe in an Underground shelter. As if none of the ARMED FORCES haven't Long ago, had [ The ways & means to "Deal" with TRAITORS Who ILLEGALLY Destroyed this once amazing country & WORLD !!
Most of the time they are not seen at all, if they are flying a couple of meters over tree line. Radars have a fresnel zone effect (google it) making them kinda useless in extremely low altitudes
Is it weird that this channel sometimes feels a bit "uncritical", to put it mildly, of the Russian stuff? Also, just today, photos of another burned S300V surfaced, from earlier in the war. Also, no mention of the devastating and successful combined strikes, like the first ones with Storm Shadows in Luhansk. Russian AD would fold on day 2 if it was fighting a stocked Western military. It's doing "good" only because Ukraine's resources are scarce and it doesn't have the breadth and depth of munitions, along with super limited SEAD capabilities. Even in these circumstances, S400s in Crimea burn just alright from Neptune missiles. As a person living in Kyiv and very closely experiencing that time Russians tried to hit Patriots with Kinzhals, I'll take it any day of the week.
A couple of things: Mobility: the Russian air defense doctrine is not bite size simple. The biggest issue is which doctrine are you referring to? The PVO (Air Defense Forces) or the Army? It matters because Russian (and Soviet) Air Defense is split between the two forces. The PVO (now under the RuAF, formerly its own branch) was almost ALWAYS deployed to static emplacement. The S-25/75/125/200 systems would take 12 hours to multiple days to relocate. The S300P was the first system which allowed for fast (about an hour) relocation. The PVO S-300 tactic was to remain in the stationary defense points until the outbreak of war, then relocate to a random field nearby at the start of the war. The other older systems were just early targets of they were still in operation. The PVO area of responsibility is static strategic level assets like factories, airbases, military bases far from the battlefield. The idea was if the PVO was engaging a target with SAM assets, the army, the RuAF and the PVO's own aircraft had failed. The Army, on the other hand focused heavily on mobile systems starting with the SA-4 Krug, the SA-6 (2K12 Kub), SA-11 (Buk), etc. The Army was responsible from rail head to the front line. They even have their own S-300 variant with two different missiles for both aircraft and ballistic/cruise missiles. The real reason these drones make it through is because small, slow, and low flying objects often times are filtered out of the signal processing because the RCS is neither large enough, nor are they moving fast enough for the system to classify it as a threat. Ground clutter rejection issues is also a massive problem to deal with. It's not an easy problem to solve. These systems certainly can SEE the targets, but generally filter it out as a bird or ground clutter. I also wouldn't say these Soviet and Russian systems are simple to operate. Early systems had huge manpower requirements to operate... as many as half a dozen at radar and fire control stations and hundreds in maintenance. Early HAWK units (comparable to the S-75 but a better performer) required a half a dozen in total. There is one fire control panel which displayed everything needed to operate the system and fire it. The manpower was mostly in moving it around. Finally, Russia may have invested a lot in air defense missiles because of the air force of NATO, but I wouldn't put them drastically far ahead of the west for those types of systems once patriot enters service. Not only did it beat S-300 into widespread service, the system was quite capable as an air defense platform from day 1. The earliest version of the S-300 fired a command guided missile which is less accurate than the semi active radar homing of early Patriot. When S-300 switched to SARH missiles in the 5V55R missile, the Patriot was already using Track Via Missile missiles which were more accurate. Same is true with modern versions and active radar homing seekers. The Patriot is just as mobile as the S-300P systems and can spread out over a much larger distance with better integration with other patriot systems in the network. Patriot also wasnt designed to intercept ballistic missiles. It didn't receive that capability until Patriot Advanced Capacity 1 (PAC1) which added that capability around the first Gulf War. Patriot struggled to intercept Scuds during the war with an approximate 30% success rate. Turns out ballistic missiles are also surprisingly difficult to intercept. Patriot wound probably also struggle with these done systems but our operators are far better and more motivated to do well. Generally things which get filtered out can be reassessed by experienced operators and classified more appropriately. The one area Russia certainly has an edge is in the medium range tactical SAMs covering the front lines. The US goes from what is effectively Stingers on trucks and Bradleys (Stinger being a MANPAD) to the Patriot... there is no between system to cover that 10-25 mile range. NATO is finally seeing that value and systems like NASAM and IRST (SAM-PT too, I guess) are filling in that gap.
Ehhm. No. Russian Air defence is way ahead of NATO's in all aspects. The patriots are not nearly as good as the S-300s and neither are their operators better or more motivated.
"there is no between system to cover that 10-25 mile range." There doesn't seem to be any real point in comparing two doctrines in this way when one side has no real need for what the other side has. The US has complete and absolute dominance in the air, what purpose would a medium range SAM have to the US? What weaponry does russia or China have that is a threat in this range? Yeah we see drones be a huge problem in Ukraine but I find it unlikely that this problem exists to the same degree for the US given that planes, UAVs and helicopters will operate with near impunity in any conflict.
Current systems, like Iron Dome and David's Sling are specifically designed to hit drones and low flying cruise missiles, while also handling fast rockets and missiles. Next gen directed energy weapons will make the fight against low-cost drones a lot more economical.
The scale of attack is different. In the last conflict with gaza, Hamas managed to penetrate Isreali air defences in the first 3 days through saturated attacks but couldn't sustain the pace for long. In order to bypass any air defence network, your best bet is saturated attack.
Nothing wrong with simple, I mean the Sidewinder missile was historically one of the easiest to produce, and test missiles of all time. Yet it has proven to be highly effective.
That's why Buks had an easier time shooting down a civilian airliner than a drone. But even Strelas which are intended for slow flying small cruise missiles they are poor suited for the role
And even if they could be targeted, it's a huge disparity in cost and resources spent. Shooting down a jet that costs tens of millions? Massive win. Shooting down a single drone that cost in the thousands? Not so much.
TOR and Pantsir are made to shoot slow and low targets ... they have been shooting them in Syria for years only diff is in Syria the bases are small and can be covered by few vehicles while Moscow is huge: moscow city is 5 times as big as Los Angeles and the metropolitan area (moscow city and moscow oblast) is 10% of California and 10% of what is left of Ukraine.
Why - because no tecnologically advanced nation has ever had to defend against significiant drone attacks - both sides having to learn and adapt fast. And both sides are adapting methods to counter the counter drone methods, what works today probably wont very soon.
West already have those systems. It is more that they enemies died before they could use drones. What BTW are a thing from 60's. US was actively using drones during Desert Storm. It only become common knowledge in Afganistan. It is why everyone say that this war is not modern.
This video is slightly misleading. Russia has shot down many drones and even storm shadows. The reasons why Ukrainian drones are hitting targets is that they are sent in massive swarms able to bypass the bubbles. A SAMS isn't an automatic AA gun dozens can be easily shot down by 1 S-400 without a dozen missles. In conclusion russian air defence isn't failing Ukraine has used a smart strategy to penetrate holes within the network.
@@somezsaltz6835 it can because it has the multi launch capability but it can't shoot a whole entire swarm. The S400 Triumf has the capabilities to shoot down multiple drones, aircraft, cruise missiles (yes including the storm shadow). But against a swarm it will be impossible to stop them completely which applies to every SAMS
There's no evidence go indicate the presence of large swarms of drones, if russia was successfully intercepting hundreds of drones they'd be parading video footage of it all over the news cycle.
If I was supplying Ukraine, knowing that proportionality is important, I would be asking myself. “What is the cheapest thing we can produce that Russian air defence will shoot down?” If you can make something that costs a fraction as much as an S300 missile, but looks like an F-16 on Russian radar, than manufacture thousands of them and send them over along with a few F-16s and make them guess.
@@nobodyfromnowhere3597if we are talking about the MALD, it will continue to work because as an air defense operator, the only way to see if a target on the screen is a MALD is through visual confirmation but if it IS an actual aircraft, waiting until you can visually see it would be far too late. MALD's perfectly emulate the aircraft they're programed to be a copy of, meaning they are indistinguishable on a radar screen. You'd HAVE to fire on it or potentially risk infrastructure, manpower, or equipment destruction. If the MALD emulates a mig-29, that would look like a HARM could be on the way or if it looks like a su-24, that could mean a storm shadow could be on the way. All scenarios Russia doesn't want to deal with. The only problem with the MALDs is Ukraine has a small airforce so they wouldn't be able to use them en masse because that would be obvious. But a couple with every missile strike would still make ruzzia use more missile interceptors than needed, though not enough to exhaust their supply.
Thing is russia makes extensive use of EW to bring down drones, and something that cheap if it needs to be shot down can be dealt with with a much cheaper pantsir
Drones were never considered valid targets for the S-400 (this system is designed to deal with ballistic missiles or large AWACS/electronic warfare aircraft, which usually stay as far away as possible). Specialized Russian drone fighters are Pantsir or SA-15 Gauntlet (Thor), their missiles are already simpler and cheaper in many times. Special small-sized short-range missiles for the Pantsir are also being developed, and four such missiles can be placed instead of one.
Ah, yes... Why shoot down a 5K dollar drone that will 30 million dollars in damage by killing and destroying our equipment when we can save on our missiles.
Drones are often made of cheap plastic-based composite that makes them hard to locate in radars. Furthermore, their small size and flight path make the task even more difficult for any traditional air defence system worldwide. We saw how high-end and ultra-expensive US-made air defence systems failed in Saudi when cheap Iranian drones took out a Saudi oil refinery on September 14, 2019.
That says nothing of their capability. Saudi's military is almost as inept as russia's, it's not a stretch to attribute that attack to the Saudi's poor use of the system rather than the patriot batteries being bested by cheap Iranian drones.
1:50 I like the selection of “security and tech experts” (as forced to say by the script). More then half of them are “pay to be featured” comparison sites and the rest might have a tech journalist on there staff but I highly doubt they have done real testing. I especially love PewDiePie on the list. I guess he has done an add read in past as well.
I don't expect their air defense systems to shoot down every drone, or missile, but the depth and frequency of the penetration should be of grave concern. They are hitting major targets.
Sorry, but this reasoning that Russian air defenses are built to be mobile and thus don't do well in a stationary role is not convincing at all. Also the simplicity explanation. The German Gepard are simple and old too and do a great job shooting down drones. And that we wouldn't hear much about intercepted drones is also not true, with hundreds of Russian military bloggers writing and talking about every little detail happening at the front and civilians filming and uploading everything.
They aren't desogned to be integrated is what he means i think. Which indeed is something they have just started to implement properly. And gephard isn't a missile system, which is has advantages with low flying threats. But yeah, everytime they intercept anything they make a lot of pooha about it. They also only took down a single storm shadow early on.
@@wedgeantilles8575 How is it absurd when we are talking about systems used to shoot down drones and when the Russians have their own gun-based close air defense system they use to shoot down drones? ALSO, you genius, the context of the video was that those Russian systems supposedly are simple and easy to use and from the user interface perspective there isn't much of a difference between a Gepard and a missile system. In both you stare at a screen and push buttons. Holy shit. Why are there so many barely functioning autistic idiots among military nerds? How do you guys always talk so arrogantly with such conviction when you don't even get the most simple things?
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 That is one of the reasons why I bring up the Gepard. You think that thing is "integrated"? The Ukrainians are using so many different air defense systems from different sources, you think they are "integrated" with each other or some higher entity? Nonsense. In all of them you just have people sitting at work stations, controlling one system they were trained to control. There is absolutely no justification for why the Russian ones perform that badly in Russian hands when the Ukrainians with their crash course education and a rag tag collection of old systems manage to shoot down 95% of all the stuff fired at them.
@@TrangleC nato sams are designed to be integrated with eachother easilly, no matter the manufacturer or origin country. The reason russia sucks is mostly because everything sucks in russia. Corruption has that influence on things.
China has an anti-drone machine gun with small missiles like the RPG as backup, all on an armoured hull which can move. It's a self-propelled flak with RPG rockets. It seems that this is the future of warfare, especially in the third world, but only China has this for some reason.
Saying that the air defense is likely doing a decent job because we don't see a ton of successful strikes is a bit of conjecture. We don't know how many missiles were sent, how Ukraine is allocating the limited supply of those missiles to targets, or how many platforms can actually be used. The successful hits on the strategic targets of depots, HQs, and bridges by Himars alone is enough to say that at least Russia's strategy when those systems arrived was not great. Recently, Himars is being used to hit tactical targets, even after Russia is thought to have adapted to it. UKR doesn't have a large supply of those NATO missiles. The sinking of the Moskva and the loss of the landing ships in harbor by old soviet ballistic missiles is also not indicative of great air defense strategy. There are quite a few videos of UKR drones viewing the destruction of Russian air defense systems by Himars missiles and drones. That's not even mentioning Israel's success in striking Syria and Iran, which use Russian air defense systems, many of which are operated by Russians. My impression would be that Russia's systems are a bit overhyped, poorly maintained, or operated unskillfully. They're fighting Ukraine, not the more advanced NATO, for which those systems were developed after all.
The purpose of the S-300/400 is not to shoot at targets such as small, slow moving drones or even GMLRS rockets, which is why a swarm of small, low flying drones or a salvo from MLRS systems can seriously hurt the missile battery. They are designed to be an area denial weapon for bombers, AWACS, transport aircraft and supersonic fighter aircraft. This is their primary objective, to deny air supremacy. Their effectiveness to achieve this in Ukraine can be seen more from the lens of Ukrainians, where Russian bombers are forced to shoot cruise missile from long range rather than carpet bomb the battlefield. S-300/400 battery has to be accompanied by a battery of medium to low range air defense systems to shield them from threats of drones and MLRS rockets. This is the main issue for Russia, there is no sufficient amount of medium air defense systems anymore since the serious attrition during the first year of the war. Even before the war there were no sufficient numbers of Pantsir/modernized TOR systems, now even less so.
No one can defend against small plastic drones that fly low and at low speeds when you have the insanely large territory. Russian air defense, especially Pantsir is performing well, it has adapted to any new threat thrown at it. Russia has gained and is gaining experience against different types of targets, and they are improving their software and hardware in newer models every month. Here in Serbia, we got software updates based on the experience in Ukraine, we have the S1E, the systems are way more effective at tracking targets after the update.
In Russia they use buildings to intercept drones. What a brilliant development! Maybe you should try that technique next time you try to kill off your neighbours... Also you claim to be from Serbia yet your channel says you are from Switzerland. Did you steal someone's account or something?
They probably can intercept gmlrs, but they only took down a single storm shadow until now though, a few months ago. Storm shadow is a limited resource, they aren't spamming them on useless targets like some other army i know..
There has been no evidence of any Storm Shadow or SCALP intercept so far for all I know. That one released video of a Pantsir trying to intercept one seconds before impact and where Russia claimed it shot down a Storm Shadow actually clearly shows the Pantsir failing at its attempt to intercept the Storm Shadow.
@@nunyadambusiness6902 perhaps. I do seem to remember some being intercepted though. But looking at how much they are blowing up the intercept rate can't be very high.
why the western air defense systems are not stopping russian missiles & iranian drones? the western air defense systems are useless against the iranain drones & russian missiles 😂😂😂
you drunk or completely out of reality? you may have missed some events watching only ruskie propaganda, dude. try to get ou of the cave and research for good sources, both sides as possible. don't be a jerk, really. It's like you're a kindergarten kid in a room of grown ups. ffs...
These Iran and Russian missiles are useless. A hit margin of +3km. Ukraine drones cost even a margin of that Russian crab. Sending 100 Ukraine drones,is stil less expensive,and way way more efective
I think it's important to mention that Russian anti-air doesn't just fail when it is deployed using methods that differ from what it was designed for. In the early days of the full scale Ukraine war the air defense units were doing exactly what their Soviet designers had envisioned: advancing with armored columns rapidly over the European plains. But those early days saw arguably the greatest failing of Russian air defenses, as many of them were destroyed by simple TB2 drones loitering over their columns unmolested. During that advance many of the mobile anti air systems were unable to operate due to difficulties in deconflicting the airspace making it impossible to prevent friendly fire incidents. The failure of Russian air defense to operate effectively during mobile operations speaks to a deeper and more fundamental failing than what is portrayed in this video.
mobile aa also can't produce the same amount if power than being connected to the grid or other established power sources, making it less capable. If you look at the us, the ford class carries needed to have greater power generation, and the Bradley Ifv needs modifications to provide the necessary power to use the iron fist aps to be effective.
The reason What also not mention is that turkiye ask 20 years for patriot system it was always extended by usa parlement or other reasons we need to have a airdefense system usa keep us delaying and waiting thats the official reason we go for s400
A VPN is not going to prevent you from getting hacked unless you are on public wifi. People on VPNs get hacked all the time. You are more likely to get hacked via downloading bad applications or clicking links in emails.
You are wrong about Russia is doing a "decent" job. I would guess that they are able to intercept drones most of the times, but to put a "Pantsir" on a roof inside Moscow that can help in these cases and still fail is nothing other than failure
These drones usually have very little metal in them, making them a pain for these longer range missile systems to engage at long enough range. There really needs to be a buk or pantsir on the flightpath by luck in order to engage them.
@@kameronjones7139 that depends. Some materials reflect radar a lot less then others. And metals probably the most. Hence why stuff like chaff was made from aluminium coated strips instead of plastic ones
@kameronjones7139 Why are you so confidently holding the position that metals don't matter? Electromagnetic waves are reflected when meeting a conductive medium ("Faraday shielding"), so radar waves are reflected when hitting a non-microscopically thin metal object. This causes a radar glint that's picked up by the receiver much better than a plastic or resin object (which would appear as a much smaller blip). Chaff is relevant, it's used to significantly raise the noise level that the radar receiver picks up, to the point the target becomes undistinguishable from the noise. To cause the noise, small, very radar-reflective (metallic) objects are spread around the aircraft
Also sometimes Air defense including American Air defense can’t target drones, especially small drones. This was according to a friend of mine who was fighting in Ukraine so I can’t give any evidence… anyone who know how SAMs and drones interact please lmk
The answer is quite different. Russians keep all their air-defence systems in Ukraine. They don’t care that a few drones might fall on a Russian town, and even kill their own civilians. Besides this, Moscow is too big to be covered completely by the air-defence systems. Moreover, Russia is a huge country and to find a loop hole for drones is an easy task.
@@onyenwegodswill576 and after those 48 hours not a single Chinese balloon was left intact plus none dared to cross the border. meanwhile, Ukrainians are bombing Moscow on a weekly basis.
Russian SAM= we have hit the targets! Ukraine= they have bitten all the decoy drones! Neptun gooo brrr!! Russian SAM ran out of ammo helplessly seeing incoming missile= **surprised pikachi face** Other assets in the area= wait smth happened? I saw explosion! And that kids, you use datalink and AWACS just in case you ran out of ammo others can be called to cover you. Plus ability coordinate with others people better!
As a former Air Defender, regardless of the weapon system in question, air defense is hard to do. I don't know the first thing about Russian radar capability, but issues I can see with systems like S300/S400, their TELs are absurdly massive, their interceptors are equally absurdly massive and to top it all off, they can only carry four interceptors per TEL. That's not great. US systems can carry a lot more, and take up a smaller footprint.
No, S-400 can carry 16 9M96E/E2 missiles, same as US Patriot PAC-3. Russians also have tons of other medium range & short range systems meant for this. Not to mention US Patriot performed (and still does) considerably worse against drones, ballistic missiles, & cruise missiles in the middle east. Near 0% interception rate in Israel (hence why David's Sling was developed), shooting down more friendly then enemy aircraft in Iraq, constantly failed to stop Iranian made drones and missiles from Yemen, etc
Thing is, the land area between Ukraine and Russia is huge and you cannot defend every single inch of it, the whole of NATO has an issue with detecting and destroying tupolev and russian runaway drones in the early days too, not like the newer systems that Ukraine was given have helped them much
A combination of small, slow, plastic, low heat signature that comes with different drone types and flying just above tree line is not what radars and missiles are designed to counter. There is a video of drone filming how, i think strela, is shooting at the drone and missile somehow fly past drone even appears to just sratch it and misses. With Ukraine and european Russia being flat planes, low flying drone is very hard to counter. An old ww2 approach of AA guns shooting is used to shoot it down. If you're in the path of drone's flight path that gives you a good chance to shoot it down. Even then, if it's night, foggy, forest you can't do much. Can't see it, can't shoot. Detection and time of reaction is critical here and if radar can not lock on, chances of you detecting it and shooting it down is low.
It’s not only cost, it’s the time required to acquire the parts to build an air defense missile versus a drone. Low tech drones can be build in any garage by relatively unskilled staff in a few days. However, AA missiles require all types of precision skills to build a missile that travels faster then speed of sound, tracks to target, maneuvers, and explodes close enough to destroy a drone. The entire effort required to send a drone toward a target versus shooting it down is a multiple of resources
Cost is not irrelevant, because cost relates to GDP. Is it worth $100 trillion dollars to shoot down one drone? Yeah, an extreme example, but the point stands.@@yetanothername1131
It annoys to no end that people never bother to run through the entire formula when trotting out the cheap drone/munition vs expensive countermeasure meme. You need to look at what capabilities are protected and enabled to truly assess whether shooting "a hundred thousand dollar" missile at a "hundred dollar" drone is "worth it".
@@overlord6887 The point people are making is that the protector has to invest far more than the attacker, and thus is losing in the economic game. Of course you would protect important targets by any means necessary, but if your protection system is far more costly to run than the attacker's weapons cost then you've still lost money in the exchange.
It has never been a matter of inability. "Can" and "cannot" do not even enter into this discussion. The problem is, it is extremely inefficient to use anything but small arms fire against drones. This is a problem for BOTH sides now, by the way, as Russia is now fielding their own drones now. if the drones cost a couple million dollars a piece, everyone would be shooting them down with missiles, no problem. But they cost a hundred dollars, maybe slightly more, counting their modifications and ammunition. Using a missile to destroy even ONE drone is a loss. Try to think of it like a battle. The enemy launches a drone. We launch a missile to shoot it down. The drone cost my enemy 200 dollars, in total. My missile costs 500,000 dollars a piece. I launch my missile and destroy the drone. I just lost that battle. I destroyed the drone, and I lost for doing so. See that? Yeah, I just spent 200,000 dollars destroying a 200 dollar drone. I lost. This is why drones are so hard to combat. In truth, there needs to be a unit within EVERY platoon or whatever they call the groups in their respective countries, that specifically deals with deploying and destroying drones. Drone on drone warfare. I think that is what the drone problem calls for. It HAS to be drone on drone warfare.
I think a good analogy is like saying a gun is an ineffective weapon since it can't shoot down a fly; people get the wrong conclusion from surface level analysis and not asking *why* said gun couldn't shoot down a fly.
I do not agree. Without an AWACS it would be impossible for any ground radar to pick up a drone that's flying 100 feet off the ground. When you can see it, it's usually too late. These SAMs are also modelled in DCS pretty accurately.
@@sentowrite4562 what vengeance? do you really what to compare? the most blind are not those who can't see, but don't want to see. go bark on another tree, you have no luck here, fanatic ah.
Likely their green screens are going into Whiteout due to waves of drones, And the software can’t handle it. Like previous software can’t differentiate an incoming missile versus drones. The return radio signal would identify an object but it wouldn’t tell you what the object is. Like a flock of birds at an airport
The last comment is wrong. Ukraine choose not to use himmars or storm shadow to strike russian territory. It's purely a political decision that doesn't prove an effectiveness of russian's air defense. Allegedly all the things that strike russia is made just recently "in-house". Like upgrade to s-200 missiles to strike ground targets.
The drones haven’t really had any impact outside the combat area. A few cruise missiles have gotten through but most are successfully intercepted. But still no real strategic or tactical benefit. A Sub in dry dock, 2 small ships damaged and a few ammo dumps doesn’t in a war. It’s Ukraine that’s desperate for air defences.
Umm, who says it can't? You can't realistically expect to shoot down every single UAV it a war involving 1000's of them. I'd say they've done very well in downing the vast majority of them.
@@InvaderNatDT He didn't trash it. He pointed out how it's supposed to work, and what is being seen in Ukraine and what people are negatively saying on the internet through memes. He's defending its apparent lack of success by saying it's not meant for drones, which are a new weaponized vehicle.
I love this VPN add, "hacked through email link" VPN will not protect you in any way shape or form, it does not act like a firewall, antivirus or anti hack at all. If you click on anything unknown your VPN is useless does not protect you against anything. any website is already encrytped you can see the lock in front of the url, its pointless to use VPNs.
Lets be honest here They dont even call it an aircraft carrier they call it somthing else soveits didnt build it for long term life Plus russia can make aircraft carriers they built 1 to india and 1 to china but they arent intrested to build one for them self
The author correctly noted that the advancing troops should be covered with an umbrella of air defense. And for this, air defense means must be mobile.
Thank 😊 for being honest. I love ur videos 📹 because u are neutral sorce, there is not a single western propaganda in ur videos. Glory to u from South Africa 🇿🇦.
The other thing is it worth tying to shoot them down with missiles if the drone is only going to hit a low value target it might be best to ignore it and hope soldiers can hit it with bullets. A missile that can hit a moving target in the air is not cheap.
Yeah, Russia exaggerates their military capabilities (like everyone else) though it seems countries that have parades of tanks and goose-stepping soldiers marching down a major city square to remind their people of the power of the State exaggerate a bit more than others. That said, underestimating Russia is probably a bad idea.
Most nato systems seem to be severely underrated though. The advertised capabilities almost always are lower then actual capabilities they turn out to show on the battlefield. Or entire capabilities aren't disclosed at all sometimes until they are used in combat..
Nobody used to underestimate Russia's military, if anything, everyone estimated the exact opposite, at least they used to. However, now, I think we now know a LOT more about how "good" the Russian military actually is.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 It depends on national strategy, you can try to appear stronger and hope that you won't be attacked/enemies will give in to your demands, or you can undersell yourself in the hopes that anyone who does attack you will be underprepared because they thought you were weak. The one thing no one does is be honest. Russia has always been an extreme example of the former camp
This goes both sides of any conflict: those systems arent designed to intercept swarms of cheap drones. In long term - as we saw with the Shahed - you need cheap countermeasures before going bankrupt with expensive missiles. Speaking of swarm attacks, thats quite complicated in coordination. In that case, we yet have to see true swarm attacks. That concept will mature in futere and will again change the battle field. Russian SAM systems has not really been stressed to the limit yet. Besides that, dynamics continue and we will see old and new countermeasures against drones. Electronics, cheap guns, anti-drone drones, etc. Its a continue race to gain and maintain the upper hand.
that's one pov. and the target of the drone? is it worthy the cost of a sam per se? maybe it is. but it seems this continuing will be less sustainable for russia (even with all holes sanctions may have) rather than for Ukraine, as they will keep having NATO and other allies supporting them to keep stressing to the rupture point ruskie air defenses. Russia cannot produce not even in tanks as much as they lose per month, much less in other more sophisticated equipment - and, also, man power is now at is lowest and so the number of factories for such diverse and demanding procurement of equipments, many of which is beying destroyed in a rate well above of than they can produce. reason why russia wants to freeze the war or they'll be unable to defend what they still have (20% of Ukraine, they lost 5% of the 25% they had at one point) if they really can defend it. Time will tell.
Could you do deep dive of actual costs of war to Russia in US dollars? I mean, equipment, sanctions, humans leaving/dying, ruble value loss- everything.
The biggest problem with Russian AA systems is the same with any other Russian system. Poor organization, poor communication, poor maintenance and poor soldier discipline. With all those stacked against them it lucky when they get an interception right.
*THE situation is mostly opposite.* Russia is shutting down the overwhelming majority of drones. However, it is not feasible to intercept all drones, hence some successfully hit. Just ask American military bases in the Middle East.
Nah, most of the Russian stuff turned out to be trash or not exist at all. If that magic system does not fire at a missile flying straight at it, it's not some sort of 4D chess. It just simply does not work.
Bro we had Russians filming their screen on the air defense system to show their misses. A soldier would not break OPSEC that hard unless they needed the footage to be public to show they are doing things correctly but the equipment is failing them.
Also those drones are making it to Moscow because they still have civilian airliners flying all across Russia and near Moscow. You can't just start blasting.
A much wider area that can be penetrated as Ukraine finds out the optimal routes, longer range missiles are too expensive and short range intercepting is that, short range. Saudis were having trouble against Yemeni drones for the same reasons. You'd need to both have a very small area to cover and blank check like Israel to detect and shoot down everything.
Shooting down a missile and a drone is a different story. Missiles are often complex systems with high unit cost, while drones may be cheap including those with munitions for attack. Meanwhile, small drones may have less RCS by less metal components, and smaller size. It is also not cost effective to shoot down cheap drones for expensive air defense missiles. However, Ukrainian source report difficulties to counter jamming.
Unfortunately so. Ukraine seems to be doing a very good job attriting Russian artillery though, and acceptable job degrading Russia's air defence and electronic warfare capabilities. Maybe you would be so kind as to look into how successful (or not) these efforts have been taking into account Russian abilities to replace losses of course? I would be happy to help if you need. I have some experience.
We have seen how Russian air defense have wipe off Bayraktar and Harm missile from the skies of Ukraine!..and also we have seen how Lancet drones have destroyed western air defense systems like IRIS-T, Aspide, Avenger, Gepard...among others.
True, but it's just a war of attrition that is hard to win: drones are far cheaper and even a 99% success rate against 1000 drones means 10 hits land. It's just not a favorable position for Russia.
@@rhodium1096Ukraine lost an iris-t radar last fall(which has already been replaced with a further 3 or 4 radars but no launcher has been destroyed yet. The video of the lancet hitting the iris-t launcher actually showed an iris-t decoy(evidence was lack of secondary explosions when the lancet hit the missile tube, which if real, should've looked like a fireworks display).
@@bud4792 Even pro Ukraine western media told that an IRIS-T was destroyed....also Spanish media told that an Aspide supplied by them was destroyed...so your coment is useless
Did you forget that they defeated Germany during WWII and were the first army to enter Berlin? They also have hypersonic missiles that cannot be detected nor stopped. They also have the best submarines. MIG-25 was the fastest fighter/interceptor during its time. Give them some credit my friend. We were in Afghanistan for 2 decades and over 2 Trillion dollars, then we run as fast as we could and left everything behind. Our economy, our education, our infrastructures are a mess, yet we continue wasting billions and billions of hard earn taxpayer $ for a war that is lost before it started. We bet on sanctions doing the job and it back fired at us. Check what is happening is Africa and many other places across the globe.
Tell me, then, why has Russia lost more in Ukraine than the United States has lost *in every conflict it's participated in from Vietnam to now?* Because that's what the Russian casualties are looking like. In a little over a year, against a broke European backwater, they've wasted more men than America has in over half a century of warfare. America is really good at the "fighting" part of a war. Where we fall apart is the "occupation" portion, otherwise known as "the hard part". Russia is still floundering at the easiest segment of a conflict. Russia has already lost. Now, that doesn't mean Ukraine has won. But given the ridiculous expenditures, how isolated they've become from the rest of the world, the expansion of NATO, the utter kneecapping of Russian prestige, Russia has conclusively lost this war. Even if by some miracle they manage to hold onto some dirt, they still have to occupy it, with a native population who hates their guts and have a ridiculous amount of heavy weapons on-hand. The best thing Russia could do would be to cut her losses and run. Otherwise, Ukraine is just going to be where impoverished, young Russian men go to be converted into fertilizer. They're going to have to leave eventually. All occupiers eventually do.
Exclusive! Grab the NordVPN deal ➼ nordvpn.com/covert and get 4 extra months. Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!
I will never forget what you said to Ukraine when the invasion launched. 😂
Your videos are getting buried buddy, I haven’t seen you in my feed in weeks. 💩 pisses me off, I’ll make sure I search for you if it continues.
Stop promoting such a horrible company man. You're seriously hurting your credibility. My entire team has been watching this channel for years and we're disgusted to see you stoop so low. Keep on suggesting that we tunnel our internet traffic through a company whose sole business model is to sell your browsing data. I mean seriously man? Also, PUBLIC WIFI ISNT RISKY with the advent of the newer protocols. That's based on old fallacies of tech based in the early 2000's. You out of anybody should know this.
Your videos are amazing
Please analyse your audio, there is a ground loop or hum very audible, you can also just apply a filter for that certain grid frequency.
They always ask what air defense doing, not how air defense doing....
Probably quite drunk
@@noname-wo9yyAir defence has feelings too😢😢
How is ukrane drones doing
@Castragroup Aged like milk.
Should also be mentioned that drones are VERY cheap while AA missiles are seriously expensive. Not sure Russia (or anyone really) can afford to just chuck $100K-$1M missiles at $500-$1500 drones.
The answer is gun-based AA systems. Russia never stopped developing and deploying them, while the West had to send museum pieces to Ukraine.
All that Russia needs to do is adjust existing and develop new radars/radar filters that can effectively detect these drones. Existing radars can be tuned to do it, but this results in a lot of false returns. Meaning that drones can get through while the operators try to figure out what returns are real. This is fixed by throwing computer power at the problem to filter out these false returns quickly in newer radar/radar filters. This doesn't take THAT much processing power to do, chips made 20 years ago can do it. It's just a matter of taking the time to properly develop a system that can survive in a combat environment. Then fitting it to an existing gun-based AA system.
In 5-10 years, these drones will be far more easily detected and destroyed than they are now.
Russia has a lot of AA missiles and also still produces them in large quantities, probably faster than Ukraine can produce long range drones.
The economics are bad, but if the drone hits something valuable, then the expensive missile would have been worth it.
@@Crosshair84 I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that cannon-based air defense systems with more capable radar could be a decently cost-effective solution to countering relatively cheap drones, but you say all that like the process of designing/developing/testing/manufacturing/fielding a new weapons system in the russian military is something that just works fine every time with no problems at all...
@@Crosshair84 Rheinmetall was producing modern gun based AA systems all the time. Skyranger, Mantis, etc.
We just have to buy these systems.
Its worth mentioning that Turkey's decision to go with s400 and lose the f-35 program was much less about the capabilities of the system, and more about their geopolitical strategy of playing both sides. they want to continue with the backdoor agreement and Syria where Russia mostly leaves them alone in their occupation of the Northern parts.
Indeed.
*Except when their shooting down Russian jets. Again.
@@RangerB66 yeah a lot has happened since that deal, including an entire war in Ukraine. it's safe to say the situation is complicated.
No
@@RangerB66gotta do something with new air defense... it's better than shooting down civilian airliners which are the traditional targets of Russian missile systems.
One problem with using air defense over a target as large as Moscow, is that succesfully intercepting a drone means lots of debris over civilians, and even jamming GPS leads to big issues for civilian infrastructure.
On the plus side, drones usually have weak payloads that don't cause wide scale damage, and are usually meant as a symbolic attack like the first drone assault on moscow literally targeting the russian flag.
Yes, but a Ukrainian drone being jammed so that civilians are killed/injured is a win for Russian propaganda.
Sacrificing civilians to protect Putin is what Russia does.
they still on 1980 technology they never took the next step, guess who makin all modern things ,... big west!!! nato gang
not a single rocket woud hit usa or germany im safe not a single foreign fly
@@HURENSOHNRUclipsUS Patriots failed horribly in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel. 😂
@@CrimsonAlchemist that was in '91. Now they claim they can hit at least half the targets they aim at ;)
Drones just aren't what their systems were designed to defend against. Shields were invents after spears. Sword came before armour. Bullets predate bulletproof vests.
New defences, possibly even drone based or AI controlled AA guns - will come along eventually.
This is how arms races work.
Exactly. I've been saying that the same people making this argument are essentially arguing that a gun can't stop a home intruder since it can't shoot down a fly.
The Russian don't really have the innovation abilities to create those new things, so they'll have to wait until the Chinese can steal the technology somewhere and sell them knock-offs.
but russia already have such systems
remember the new german anti aircraft assult vehical thingy that ukrain just got
russia also has things like that and good ones
but it do seems like they have failed utilize them so far
Drones are only effective because short range gap, after development of fast aviation and long range missiles. As such no one would risk attack on short range (except maybe Russians of Chinese) and so most armies decommissioned they MANPAD's and SPAAG's. But ability to send large number of small aircraft's, what do need come back. Allowed again exploit this gap. But only in case of Middle East and African countries, with limited armament. Even if they armies were relatively modern. But here is the thing! West already did have tons of MANPAD's and SPAAGS, so reactivating them alongside immense knowledge on this topic, allowed them to set modern SHORAD almost immediately!
Shaheds perform extremely poor in Ukraine. As easily over 80% is destroyed. And those what aren't mostly hit civilian targets (what naturally are not covered as much), making it more terror device then actual weapon. Ukraine also have clear advantage in drones, despite having less of those. Russian air defense has extremely outdated radars and targeting systems, what can't hit drones effectively. The only reason why Russian army look like prepared is because they didn't remove SPAAG's from service, but only because outdated doctrine.
@@jameshealer1395yet Moscow and the Crimean bridge have still gone kaboom boom pow pow, even though Russia supposedly have these systems. Either the Russians are retarded or it doesn’t exist
The S-75 was designated the SA-2 'Guideline' by NATO during the Cold War.
During the Vietnam War, the US was also learning tons about how to jam and attack the SA-2. During LINEBACKER II, the NVN was reduced to volleying large numbers of missiles at B-52s. Of course, the Soviets learned, developed new systems and the game went on. Countering NATO ECM may be one reason the Soviets/Russians invested in so many different systems.
The reason for going with so many ground based system was that the Soviet doctrine, which the Russians continued, always assumed that they would not have air superiority. It was something they would like to have and would try to have, but could not be guaranteed. This means that Russian ground units would have to be able to defend themselves from air attack by themselves. Air attack could come in the form of low, medium, and high altitude threats. So they needed systems that could cover all 3 areas and work together to provide total coverage. Countering one system tended to make an aircraft vulnerable to other systems. So it was very much a team game.
The result was a combined air defense that, while not 100% effective, guaranteed that the losses suffered by a peer level opponent would be unacceptably high. Meaning that their opponents would either soon run out of aircraft and pilots or be forced to use their air-resources in sub-optimal ways to keep losses low. So even though the enemy may have ways to make the Russian air defenses less effective, those strategies also made those air assets less effective and less useful. Which is still a win for the Russians.
We're seeing the results in Ukraine. Western thinking and tactics just completely fall apart in such an environment. Because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority.
@@Crosshair84 I’d argue we are not seeing western tactics being used in the air in Ukraine. Anti- air defense systems changed their name from SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) to DEAD (destruction of enemy air defense) due to better anti radiation missiles, better EW, and decoy/drone systems. If a truly western approach was applied as in article 5, then 5th gen systems would also be used. As shown by Russia in Ukraine, the S-400 is much less capable than advertised and their numbers of interceptors is lower than anticipated.
The smaller more mobile systems are a force to be reckoned with in their engagement zones; however, destroying them after neutralizing S-400/300 systems is rather straightforward: turn your system on and you get taken out.
Also, your stance also doesn’t take into account systems entering final pre-production stages.
The west has also (if we are talking pooled resources) a MORE effective system than Russia. That’s because all of these systems are made to interoperable with most American or close Allie’s systems. Therefore, you could have THAD/Arrow, Patriot, Nasam, Iron dome, avenger, CRAM, and the newer German 35mm systems. And UNLIKE Russian systems they tend to have an over 80% rate in their latest variants.
@@Crosshair84Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed, only Russians think that way. There are plenty of counters to ground based air defense besides staying away from it. Air launched decoys, EW, anti radiation missiles, etc. The Russians want to counter our air power with GBAD so we counter their GBAD with Suppression and destruction of enemy air defense.
@@Crosshair84 👍 And NATO wants Ukraine to fight a NATO-style war without NATO-level resources
@@nsatodayactually, not having all the NATO equipment might be a plus for the Ukrainians in the Russian Air Defense discussion.
Notice how the HARM anti-radiation missiles were largely ineffective against most of the major Russian air defense systems when they were first sent and after a while the Ukrainians gave up on using them, because they lost more aircrafts than targets.
They instead resorted to using improvised means to go after the Russian Air defenses, including using HIMARS.
If they had F-16s or other NATO SEAD platforms, they might have had some level of success in the early days, but soon enough, they'd have been out of aircrafts, because;
1. NATO SEAD operations are exactly what the Russian integrated Air Defense doctrine was created to counter.
2. This war has shown how quickly the Russians adapt to new threats, it would have helped them modify their Air Defense tactics, just the way they did when the Ukrainians started using HARM missiles and Russia switched to running air patrols with their Su-34 carrying long range R-73 missiles which took out Ukrainian jets long before the Ukrainians could see their enemies.
‘The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct, large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.’
Also, how do we vent the core?? A air duct? Great idea, what could go wrong!?
That's impossible! Even for a computer!
"It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than 2 meters!" @@robzilla730 Love
"Rodents of unusual size? I think they don't exist."
Inconceivable!
Beam me up, Anakin.
Answer: low flying suicide drones are hard to spot when you have a 1000km border, they literally look like a swan on radar
During Soviet times they could not afford to have air defence everywhere, thats why huge emphasis was on Ukraine or Belarus
A really, REALLY fast moving swan.
@johnsmith1953x Yes... & the size & H E. Explosive potential of an ACTUAL Bird. [ Small Drones ] Oooh.. ( Blowing out office building windows. ! & minimal damage. NOT @ all affecting RU Military. BTW. I WANT my country, (( The U.S. )) To be the most potent military in the world. Yet nearly depleted. W/ "Just in time" shipping of material. Like a typical grocery store. ( That DOES NOT work in a war against something other than a 3'rd world country) Go ahead... Send more BILLIONS of $$ TO What's left of the handful of non trained, { 3 Weeks trained, (( Well documented)) NAZI's Who started heavily Shelling & Killing the Donbas region Over. 8 years ago ! { Besause they identify & speak Russian. & What are the odds of the sitting President & family deeply involved in businesses of which they have ZERO Skillset "Opperating"... & Desire to insight a WAR w/ China. Meanwhile ALL Experienced combat operators are Long gone. W/ little more than Volenters to start an amateur tennis club. (( That Litterly Can't pass the most basic physical requirements !! )) Hey , Brilliant move... It's Hillarious that those that pushed this AGENDA actually believe they are safe in an Underground shelter. As if none of the ARMED FORCES haven't Long ago, had [ The ways & means to "Deal" with TRAITORS Who ILLEGALLY Destroyed this once amazing country & WORLD !!
Most of the time they are not seen at all, if they are flying a couple of meters over tree line. Radars have a fresnel zone effect (google it) making them kinda useless in extremely low altitudes
But if they can't defend against that, they have zero chance of successful engaging something like the F-22.
7:40: "If Russian air defence was failing, you would expect to see many more successful strikes".
Welp. That aged well.
Is it weird that this channel sometimes feels a bit "uncritical", to put it mildly, of the Russian stuff? Also, just today, photos of another burned S300V surfaced, from earlier in the war. Also, no mention of the devastating and successful combined strikes, like the first ones with Storm Shadows in Luhansk. Russian AD would fold on day 2 if it was fighting a stocked Western military. It's doing "good" only because Ukraine's resources are scarce and it doesn't have the breadth and depth of munitions, along with super limited SEAD capabilities. Even in these circumstances, S400s in Crimea burn just alright from Neptune missiles. As a person living in Kyiv and very closely experiencing that time Russians tried to hit Patriots with Kinzhals, I'll take it any day of the week.
Ageing even better by the day.
What do you mean by that?
@@simnm8057 Well, SU-57 is kill
@@idoticHydra5671 not really
A couple of things:
Mobility: the Russian air defense doctrine is not bite size simple. The biggest issue is which doctrine are you referring to? The PVO (Air Defense Forces) or the Army? It matters because Russian (and Soviet) Air Defense is split between the two forces. The PVO (now under the RuAF, formerly its own branch) was almost ALWAYS deployed to static emplacement. The S-25/75/125/200 systems would take 12 hours to multiple days to relocate. The S300P was the first system which allowed for fast (about an hour) relocation. The PVO S-300 tactic was to remain in the stationary defense points until the outbreak of war, then relocate to a random field nearby at the start of the war. The other older systems were just early targets of they were still in operation.
The PVO area of responsibility is static strategic level assets like factories, airbases, military bases far from the battlefield. The idea was if the PVO was engaging a target with SAM assets, the army, the RuAF and the PVO's own aircraft had failed.
The Army, on the other hand focused heavily on mobile systems starting with the SA-4 Krug, the SA-6 (2K12 Kub), SA-11 (Buk), etc.
The Army was responsible from rail head to the front line. They even have their own S-300 variant with two different missiles for both aircraft and ballistic/cruise missiles.
The real reason these drones make it through is because small, slow, and low flying objects often times are filtered out of the signal processing because the RCS is neither large enough, nor are they moving fast enough for the system to classify it as a threat. Ground clutter rejection issues is also a massive problem to deal with. It's not an easy problem to solve. These systems certainly can SEE the targets, but generally filter it out as a bird or ground clutter.
I also wouldn't say these Soviet and Russian systems are simple to operate. Early systems had huge manpower requirements to operate... as many as half a dozen at radar and fire control stations and hundreds in maintenance. Early HAWK units (comparable to the S-75 but a better performer) required a half a dozen in total. There is one fire control panel which displayed everything needed to operate the system and fire it. The manpower was mostly in moving it around.
Finally, Russia may have invested a lot in air defense missiles because of the air force of NATO, but I wouldn't put them drastically far ahead of the west for those types of systems once patriot enters service. Not only did it beat S-300 into widespread service, the system was quite capable as an air defense platform from day 1. The earliest version of the S-300 fired a command guided missile which is less accurate than the semi active radar homing of early Patriot. When S-300 switched to SARH missiles in the 5V55R missile, the Patriot was already using Track Via Missile missiles which were more accurate. Same is true with modern versions and active radar homing seekers. The Patriot is just as mobile as the S-300P systems and can spread out over a much larger distance with better integration with other patriot systems in the network.
Patriot also wasnt designed to intercept ballistic missiles. It didn't receive that capability until Patriot Advanced Capacity 1 (PAC1) which added that capability around the first Gulf War. Patriot struggled to intercept Scuds during the war with an approximate 30% success rate. Turns out ballistic missiles are also surprisingly difficult to intercept. Patriot wound probably also struggle with these done systems but our operators are far better and more motivated to do well. Generally things which get filtered out can be reassessed by experienced operators and classified more appropriately.
The one area Russia certainly has an edge is in the medium range tactical SAMs covering the front lines. The US goes from what is effectively Stingers on trucks and Bradleys (Stinger being a MANPAD) to the Patriot... there is no between system to cover that 10-25 mile range. NATO is finally seeing that value and systems like NASAM and IRST (SAM-PT too, I guess) are filling in that gap.
Ehhm. No. Russian Air defence is way ahead of NATO's in all aspects. The patriots are not nearly as good as the S-300s and neither are their operators better or more motivated.
@@afrolitious7930 Biggest russian cope I've seen in this entire thread.
"there is no between system to cover that 10-25 mile range." There doesn't seem to be any real point in comparing two doctrines in this way when one side has no real need for what the other side has. The US has complete and absolute dominance in the air, what purpose would a medium range SAM have to the US? What weaponry does russia or China have that is a threat in this range? Yeah we see drones be a huge problem in Ukraine but I find it unlikely that this problem exists to the same degree for the US given that planes, UAVs and helicopters will operate with near impunity in any conflict.
Current systems, like Iron Dome and David's Sling are specifically designed to hit drones and low flying cruise missiles, while also handling fast rockets and missiles. Next gen directed energy weapons will make the fight against low-cost drones a lot more economical.
The scale of attack is different. In the last conflict with gaza, Hamas managed to penetrate Isreali air defences in the first 3 days through saturated attacks but couldn't sustain the pace for long. In order to bypass any air defence network, your best bet is saturated attack.
Hope all is well for you brother feels like you only post every blue moon these days
What about blue balls?
Is he sick or something?
Nothing wrong with simple, I mean the Sidewinder missile was historically one of the easiest to produce, and test missiles of all time.
Yet it has proven to be highly effective.
Small, low and slow, cannot be easily picked up by current SAMs designed for larger high speed targets.
That's why Buks had an easier time shooting down a civilian airliner than a drone. But even Strelas which are intended for slow flying small cruise missiles they are poor suited for the role
And even if they could be targeted, it's a huge disparity in cost and resources spent. Shooting down a jet that costs tens of millions? Massive win. Shooting down a single drone that cost in the thousands? Not so much.
@@daniel_dumilecruise missiles fly way faster than drones
TOR and Pantsir are made to shoot slow and low targets ... they have been shooting them in Syria for years only diff is in Syria the bases are small and can be covered by few vehicles while Moscow is huge: moscow city is 5 times as big as Los Angeles and the metropolitan area (moscow city and moscow oblast) is 10% of California and 10% of what is left of Ukraine.
Why - because no tecnologically advanced nation has ever had to defend against significiant drone attacks - both sides having to learn and adapt fast. And both sides are adapting methods to counter the counter drone methods, what works today probably wont very soon.
Uhhh Saudi arabia and her arab coalition defending against drone attacks since 2017...
West already have those systems. It is more that they enemies died before they could use drones. What BTW are a thing from 60's. US was actively using drones during Desert Storm. It only become common knowledge in Afganistan. It is why everyone say that this war is not modern.
This video is slightly misleading. Russia has shot down many drones and even storm shadows. The reasons why Ukrainian drones are hitting targets is that they are sent in massive swarms able to bypass the bubbles. A SAMS isn't an automatic AA gun dozens can be easily shot down by 1 S-400 without a dozen missles. In conclusion russian air defence isn't failing Ukraine has used a smart strategy to penetrate holes within the network.
Very well said
1 s400 missile probably cost like 100+ drones
1 s400 missing can’t shoot down multiple targets wtf are you talking about?
@@somezsaltz6835 it can because it has the multi launch capability but it can't shoot a whole entire swarm. The S400 Triumf has the capabilities to shoot down multiple drones, aircraft, cruise missiles (yes including the storm shadow). But against a swarm it will be impossible to stop them completely which applies to every SAMS
There's no evidence go indicate the presence of large swarms of drones, if russia was successfully intercepting hundreds of drones they'd be parading video footage of it all over the news cycle.
If I was supplying Ukraine, knowing that proportionality is important, I would be asking myself. “What is the cheapest thing we can produce that Russian air defence will shoot down?”
If you can make something that costs a fraction as much as an S300 missile, but looks like an F-16 on Russian radar, than manufacture thousands of them and send them over along with a few F-16s and make them guess.
that'd be the MALD Decoy, we already sent those. Though not in the 1000s I guess
The problem with any Ruse it works once.
@@nobodyfromnowhere3597if we are talking about the MALD, it will continue to work because as an air defense operator, the only way to see if a target on the screen is a MALD is through visual confirmation but if it IS an actual aircraft, waiting until you can visually see it would be far too late. MALD's perfectly emulate the aircraft they're programed to be a copy of, meaning they are indistinguishable on a radar screen. You'd HAVE to fire on it or potentially risk infrastructure, manpower, or equipment destruction. If the MALD emulates a mig-29, that would look like a HARM could be on the way or if it looks like a su-24, that could mean a storm shadow could be on the way. All scenarios Russia doesn't want to deal with. The only problem with the MALDs is Ukraine has a small airforce so they wouldn't be able to use them en masse because that would be obvious. But a couple with every missile strike would still make ruzzia use more missile interceptors than needed, though not enough to exhaust their supply.
Thing is russia makes extensive use of EW to bring down drones, and something that cheap if it needs to be shot down can be dealt with with a much cheaper pantsir
Yep! overwhelming the enemy and depleting their defenses at little cost is a winning strategy
The real reason is : COST
S-400 missile cost $10 million (per-missile), they don't want to waste an expensive Missile against $ 5,000 suicide drone.
Drones were never considered valid targets for the S-400 (this system is designed to deal with ballistic missiles or large AWACS/electronic warfare aircraft, which usually stay as far away as possible).
Specialized Russian drone fighters are Pantsir or SA-15 Gauntlet (Thor), their missiles are already simpler and cheaper in many times.
Special small-sized short-range missiles for the Pantsir are also being developed, and four such missiles can be placed instead of one.
Ah, yes... Why shoot down a 5K dollar drone that will 30 million dollars in damage by killing and destroying our equipment when we can save on our missiles.
Drones are often made of cheap plastic-based composite that makes them hard to locate in radars. Furthermore, their small size and flight path make the task even more difficult for any traditional air defence system worldwide. We saw how high-end and ultra-expensive US-made air defence systems failed in Saudi when cheap Iranian drones took out a Saudi oil refinery on September 14, 2019.
That says nothing of their capability. Saudi's military is almost as inept as russia's, it's not a stretch to attribute that attack to the Saudi's poor use of the system rather than the patriot batteries being bested by cheap Iranian drones.
Yay, Covert Cabal video!
I am especially skeptical of the workings of Nord VPN😏
100%. Mullvad is far superior, they don't even pay for advertising, and they are amond the most popular VPNs
1:50 I like the selection of “security and tech experts” (as forced to say by the script).
More then half of them are “pay to be featured” comparison sites and the rest might have a tech journalist on there staff but I highly doubt they have done real testing.
I especially love PewDiePie on the list. I guess he has done an add read in past as well.
I don't expect their air defense systems to shoot down every drone, or missile, but the depth and frequency of the penetration should be of grave concern. They are hitting major targets.
Sorry, but this reasoning that Russian air defenses are built to be mobile and thus don't do well in a stationary role is not convincing at all.
Also the simplicity explanation. The German Gepard are simple and old too and do a great job shooting down drones.
And that we wouldn't hear much about intercepted drones is also not true, with hundreds of Russian military bloggers writing and talking about every little detail happening at the front and civilians filming and uploading everything.
They aren't desogned to be integrated is what he means i think. Which indeed is something they have just started to implement properly.
And gephard isn't a missile system, which is has advantages with low flying threats.
But yeah, everytime they intercept anything they make a lot of pooha about it. They also only took down a single storm shadow early on.
Please tell me you did not compare a Gepard to a missle system.
Jesus, comparing these two systems is beyond absurd.
@@wedgeantilles8575 How is it absurd when we are talking about systems used to shoot down drones and when the Russians have their own gun-based close air defense system they use to shoot down drones?
ALSO, you genius, the context of the video was that those Russian systems supposedly are simple and easy to use and from the user interface perspective there isn't much of a difference between a Gepard and a missile system. In both you stare at a screen and push buttons.
Holy shit. Why are there so many barely functioning autistic idiots among military nerds?
How do you guys always talk so arrogantly with such conviction when you don't even get the most simple things?
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 That is one of the reasons why I bring up the Gepard. You think that thing is "integrated"?
The Ukrainians are using so many different air defense systems from different sources, you think they are "integrated" with each other or some higher entity?
Nonsense.
In all of them you just have people sitting at work stations, controlling one system they were trained to control.
There is absolutely no justification for why the Russian ones perform that badly in Russian hands when the Ukrainians with their crash course education and a rag tag collection of old systems manage to shoot down 95% of all the stuff fired at them.
@@TrangleC nato sams are designed to be integrated with eachother easilly, no matter the manufacturer or origin country.
The reason russia sucks is mostly because everything sucks in russia. Corruption has that influence on things.
Its the same thing as American air defense cannot stop Chinese spy balloon 😂😂😂
The one they shot down, you mean?
5:03 .... where is that video from, and is it on youtube?
4:53 Looks like a Beechcraft flying backwards.
China has an anti-drone machine gun with small missiles like the RPG as backup, all on an armoured hull which can move. It's a self-propelled flak with RPG rockets. It seems that this is the future of warfare, especially in the third world, but only China has this for some reason.
Saying that the air defense is likely doing a decent job because we don't see a ton of successful strikes is a bit of conjecture. We don't know how many missiles were sent, how Ukraine is allocating the limited supply of those missiles to targets, or how many platforms can actually be used. The successful hits on the strategic targets of depots, HQs, and bridges by Himars alone is enough to say that at least Russia's strategy when those systems arrived was not great. Recently, Himars is being used to hit tactical targets, even after Russia is thought to have adapted to it. UKR doesn't have a large supply of those NATO missiles. The sinking of the Moskva and the loss of the landing ships in harbor by old soviet ballistic missiles is also not indicative of great air defense strategy. There are quite a few videos of UKR drones viewing the destruction of Russian air defense systems by Himars missiles and drones. That's not even mentioning Israel's success in striking Syria and Iran, which use Russian air defense systems, many of which are operated by Russians. My impression would be that Russia's systems are a bit overhyped, poorly maintained, or operated unskillfully. They're fighting Ukraine, not the more advanced NATO, for which those systems were developed after all.
Mole Cricket 19 showed us all we needed to know about Soviet air defense capabilities
The purpose of the S-300/400 is not to shoot at targets such as small, slow moving drones or even GMLRS rockets, which is why a swarm of small, low flying drones or a salvo from MLRS systems can seriously hurt the missile battery. They are designed to be an area denial weapon for bombers, AWACS, transport aircraft and supersonic fighter aircraft. This is their primary objective, to deny air supremacy. Their effectiveness to achieve this in Ukraine can be seen more from the lens of Ukrainians, where Russian bombers are forced to shoot cruise missile from long range rather than carpet bomb the battlefield. S-300/400 battery has to be accompanied by a battery of medium to low range air defense systems to shield them from threats of drones and MLRS rockets. This is the main issue for Russia, there is no sufficient amount of medium air defense systems anymore since the serious attrition during the first year of the war. Even before the war there were no sufficient numbers of Pantsir/modernized TOR systems, now even less so.
Moscow's air defense did "well" until drones hit the same "accidental debris" building twice within days.
I think same question is valid for Ukraine side too. Why they can't stop shahed 136?
No one can defend against small plastic drones that fly low and at low speeds when you have the insanely large territory. Russian air defense, especially Pantsir is performing well, it has adapted to any new threat thrown at it. Russia has gained and is gaining experience against different types of targets, and they are improving their software and hardware in newer models every month.
Here in Serbia, we got software updates based on the experience in Ukraine, we have the S1E, the systems are way more effective at tracking targets after the update.
In Russia they use buildings to intercept drones. What a brilliant development! Maybe you should try that technique next time you try to kill off your neighbours...
Also you claim to be from Serbia yet your channel says you are from Switzerland. Did you steal someone's account or something?
Great topic Mr. Cabal!
They probably can intercept gmlrs, but they only took down a single storm shadow until now though, a few months ago.
Storm shadow is a limited resource, they aren't spamming them on useless targets like some other army i know..
The rcs for gmlrs is way too small... plus, they aren't fired directly at the target, so counter-fire doesn't work...
There has been no evidence of any Storm Shadow or SCALP intercept so far for all I know.
That one released video of a Pantsir trying to intercept one seconds before impact and where Russia claimed it shot down a Storm Shadow actually clearly shows the Pantsir failing at its attempt to intercept the Storm Shadow.
@@nunyadambusiness6902 perhaps. I do seem to remember some being intercepted though.
But looking at how much they are blowing up the intercept rate can't be very high.
Russia have shot down 30-40 storm shadow and Scalp missile!...now Ukrainians have to use S-200 and drones due the loses of Storm Shadow.
@@rhodium1096 ofcourse they did bro. Ofcourse they did.
why the western air defense systems are not stopping russian missiles & iranian drones? the western air defense systems are useless against the iranain drones & russian missiles 😂😂😂
you drunk or completely out of reality? you may have missed some events watching only ruskie propaganda, dude. try to get ou of the cave and research for good sources, both sides as possible. don't be a jerk, really. It's like you're a kindergarten kid in a room of grown ups. ffs...
These Iran and Russian missiles are useless.
A hit margin of +3km.
Ukraine drones cost even a margin of that Russian crab.
Sending 100 Ukraine drones,is stil less expensive,and way way more efective
I think it's important to mention that Russian anti-air doesn't just fail when it is deployed using methods that differ from what it was designed for. In the early days of the full scale Ukraine war the air defense units were doing exactly what their Soviet designers had envisioned: advancing with armored columns rapidly over the European plains. But those early days saw arguably the greatest failing of Russian air defenses, as many of them were destroyed by simple TB2 drones loitering over their columns unmolested. During that advance many of the mobile anti air systems were unable to operate due to difficulties in deconflicting the airspace making it impossible to prevent friendly fire incidents.
The failure of Russian air defense to operate effectively during mobile operations speaks to a deeper and more fundamental failing than what is portrayed in this video.
mobile aa also can't produce the same amount if power than being connected to the grid or other established power sources, making it less capable. If you look at the us, the ford class carries needed to have greater power generation, and the Bradley Ifv needs modifications to provide the necessary power to use the iron fist aps to be effective.
The reason What also not mention is that turkiye ask 20 years for patriot system it was always extended by usa parlement or other reasons we need to have a airdefense system usa keep us delaying and waiting thats the official reason we go for s400
Great video. We need one on the estimated number of Russian GBADS in active service and storage.
What does GBADS stand for ground-based air defense systems?
@@simpleimprovements8733 yes
@@simpleimprovements8733yes sir
Always good to hear your voice man 👍
always happy to see a new video of yours!
The Russian air defense did well defending the Moskva, it's a submarine now!
A VPN is not going to prevent you from getting hacked unless you are on public wifi. People on VPNs get hacked all the time. You are more likely to get hacked via downloading bad applications or clicking links in emails.
You are wrong about Russia is doing a "decent" job.
I would guess that they are able to intercept drones most of the times, but to put a "Pantsir" on a roof inside Moscow that can help in these cases and still fail is nothing other than failure
These drones usually have very little metal in them, making them a pain for these longer range missile systems to engage at long enough range. There really needs to be a buk or pantsir on the flightpath by luck in order to engage them.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716lack of mental doesn't hurt detection even if it is made out of plastic.
@@kameronjones7139 that depends. Some materials reflect radar a lot less then others. And metals probably the most.
Hence why stuff like chaff was made from aluminium coated strips instead of plastic ones
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 it really doesn't matter when they are shaped the way they are your example of chaff is beyond bizarre and largely irrelevant
@kameronjones7139 Why are you so confidently holding the position that metals don't matter? Electromagnetic waves are reflected when meeting a conductive medium ("Faraday shielding"), so radar waves are reflected when hitting a non-microscopically thin metal object. This causes a radar glint that's picked up by the receiver much better than a plastic or resin object (which would appear as a much smaller blip).
Chaff is relevant, it's used to significantly raise the noise level that the radar receiver picks up, to the point the target becomes undistinguishable from the noise. To cause the noise, small, very radar-reflective (metallic) objects are spread around the aircraft
Also sometimes Air defense including American Air defense can’t target drones, especially small drones.
This was according to a friend of mine who was fighting in Ukraine so I can’t give any evidence… anyone who know how SAMs and drones interact please lmk
The answer is quite different. Russians keep all their air-defence systems in Ukraine. They don’t care that a few drones might fall on a Russian town, and even kill their own civilians. Besides this, Moscow is too big to be covered completely by the air-defence systems. Moreover, Russia is a huge country and to find a loop hole for drones is an easy task.
USA couldn't defend against a weather balloon lol
Cause they could. That thins got shot down
@@sH-ed5yf yeah after 48hrs😭
@@onyenwegodswill576 and after those 48 hours not a single Chinese balloon was left intact plus none dared to cross the border. meanwhile, Ukrainians are bombing Moscow on a weekly basis.
That line cracks me up every time. 😂
Kind of leaves me wondering about advances in anti-radiation/HarM tech 🤔
Russian SAM= we have hit the targets!
Ukraine= they have bitten all the decoy drones! Neptun gooo brrr!!
Russian SAM ran out of ammo helplessly seeing incoming missile= **surprised pikachi face**
Other assets in the area= wait smth happened? I saw explosion!
And that kids, you use datalink and AWACS just in case you ran out of ammo others can be called to cover you. Plus ability coordinate with others people better!
As a former Air Defender, regardless of the weapon system in question, air defense is hard to do. I don't know the first thing about Russian radar capability, but issues I can see with systems like S300/S400, their TELs are absurdly massive, their interceptors are equally absurdly massive and to top it all off, they can only carry four interceptors per TEL. That's not great. US systems can carry a lot more, and take up a smaller footprint.
No, S-400 can carry 16 9M96E/E2 missiles, same as US Patriot PAC-3. Russians also have tons of other medium range & short range systems meant for this.
Not to mention US Patriot performed (and still does) considerably worse against drones, ballistic missiles, & cruise missiles in the middle east. Near 0% interception rate in Israel (hence why David's Sling was developed), shooting down more friendly then enemy aircraft in Iraq, constantly failed to stop Iranian made drones and missiles from Yemen, etc
S-400 are sold to many other countries and in demand. Its silly to pretend they aren't good at what they do.
Thing is, the land area between Ukraine and Russia is huge and you cannot defend every single inch of it, the whole of NATO has an issue with detecting and destroying tupolev and russian runaway drones in the early days too, not like the newer systems that Ukraine was given have helped them much
A combination of small, slow, plastic, low heat signature that comes with different drone types and flying just above tree line is not what radars and missiles are designed to counter.
There is a video of drone filming how, i think strela, is shooting at the drone and missile somehow fly past drone even appears to just sratch it and misses.
With Ukraine and european Russia being flat planes, low flying drone is very hard to counter. An old ww2 approach of AA guns shooting is used to shoot it down.
If you're in the path of drone's flight path that gives you a good chance to shoot it down. Even then, if it's night, foggy, forest you can't do much. Can't see it, can't shoot.
Detection and time of reaction is critical here and if radar can not lock on, chances of you detecting it and shooting it down is low.
Its still a fail if your missiles costs 10 or 100 times more than a drone, when one out of 20 drones meets its target.
It's never a fail if you protect your people. Cost is irrelevant in this case.
It’s not only cost, it’s the time required to acquire the parts to build an air defense missile versus a drone. Low tech drones can be build in any garage by relatively unskilled staff in a few days. However, AA missiles require all types of precision skills to build a missile that travels faster then speed of sound, tracks to target, maneuvers, and explodes close enough to destroy a drone. The entire effort required to send a drone toward a target versus shooting it down is a multiple of resources
Cost is not irrelevant, because cost relates to GDP.
Is it worth $100 trillion dollars to shoot down one drone?
Yeah, an extreme example, but the point stands.@@yetanothername1131
It annoys to no end that people never bother to run through the entire formula when trotting out the cheap drone/munition vs expensive countermeasure meme.
You need to look at what capabilities are protected and enabled to truly assess whether shooting "a hundred thousand dollar" missile at a "hundred dollar" drone is "worth it".
@@overlord6887 The point people are making is that the protector has to invest far more than the attacker, and thus is losing in the economic game. Of course you would protect important targets by any means necessary, but if your protection system is far more costly to run than the attacker's weapons cost then you've still lost money in the exchange.
It has never been a matter of inability. "Can" and "cannot" do not even enter into this discussion. The problem is, it is extremely inefficient to use anything but small arms fire against drones. This is a problem for BOTH sides now, by the way, as Russia is now fielding their own drones now. if the drones cost a couple million dollars a piece, everyone would be shooting them down with missiles, no problem. But they cost a hundred dollars, maybe slightly more, counting their modifications and ammunition. Using a missile to destroy even ONE drone is a loss.
Try to think of it like a battle. The enemy launches a drone. We launch a missile to shoot it down. The drone cost my enemy 200 dollars, in total. My missile costs 500,000 dollars a piece. I launch my missile and destroy the drone. I just lost that battle. I destroyed the drone, and I lost for doing so.
See that? Yeah, I just spent 200,000 dollars destroying a 200 dollar drone. I lost.
This is why drones are so hard to combat. In truth, there needs to be a unit within EVERY platoon or whatever they call the groups in their respective countries, that specifically deals with deploying and destroying drones. Drone on drone warfare. I think that is what the drone problem calls for. It HAS to be drone on drone warfare.
I think a good analogy is like saying a gun is an ineffective weapon since it can't shoot down a fly; people get the wrong conclusion from surface level analysis and not asking *why* said gun couldn't shoot down a fly.
They destroyed two S400 batteries in just the last three weeks. When hype meets reality.
Unfortunately for him, Yevgueni Prigozhin was not a Ukrainian drone.
I do not agree. Without an AWACS it would be impossible for any ground radar to pick up a drone that's flying 100 feet off the ground.
When you can see it, it's usually too late.
These SAMs are also modelled in DCS pretty accurately.
its the same that western cant stop lancet drones
I would like to compare the kill ratio, but russia is not really known for being transparent by no means.
like Xulenskiis propaganda machine , all childrens and civil !! vengeanceeeee@@Maddog-xc2zv
@@sentowrite4562 what vengeance? do you really what to compare? the most blind are not those who can't see, but don't want to see. go bark on another tree, you have no luck here, fanatic ah.
Now that's what I call an unbiased opinion.❤
Russian Luna-25 crashed in the moon.
CHEERS!
You forgot to mention Russia’s number ONE problem they have with their air defense: VODKA! Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
Air defense is not magic, some drones will slip through during full scale war on a front of thousands kilometers.
Likely their green screens are going into Whiteout due to waves of drones, And the software can’t handle it.
Like previous software can’t differentiate an incoming missile versus drones.
The return radio signal would identify an object but it wouldn’t tell you what the object is. Like a flock of birds at an airport
Can't wait for your tanks update next month!
You made a whole video and came to a conclusion, and the only evidence you present is the word "likely." Very scientific.
The last comment is wrong. Ukraine choose not to use himmars or storm shadow to strike russian territory. It's purely a political decision that doesn't prove an effectiveness of russian's air defense. Allegedly all the things that strike russia is made just recently "in-house". Like upgrade to s-200 missiles to strike ground targets.
The drones haven’t really had any impact outside the combat area. A few cruise missiles have gotten through but most are successfully intercepted. But still no real strategic or tactical benefit. A Sub in dry dock, 2 small ships damaged and a few ammo dumps doesn’t in a war.
It’s Ukraine that’s desperate for air defences.
This certainly aged well.
It’s true that we really only see the drone that made it to its target on the news but never see the 20 drones shot down before hand.
always interesting stuff
Russia is a Master of building air defense systems against Civilian Airliners. Lol
Umm, who says it can't? You can't realistically expect to shoot down every single UAV it a war involving 1000's of them. I'd say they've done very well in downing the vast majority of them.
That's literally the final statement made in the video.
@@bcomp12 Yes, after trashing it for most of the video and giving it a clickbait title.
@@InvaderNatDT He didn't trash it. He pointed out how it's supposed to work, and what is being seen in Ukraine and what people are negatively saying on the internet through memes. He's defending its apparent lack of success by saying it's not meant for drones, which are a new weaponized vehicle.
0:27 and don’t forgot Russias high speed nuclear bombers got destroyed by Ukraine drone 😂 Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 ❤
Great content!!!
I love this VPN add, "hacked through email link" VPN will not protect you in any way shape or form, it does not act like a firewall, antivirus or anti hack at all.
If you click on anything unknown your VPN is useless does not protect you against anything.
any website is already encrytped you can see the lock in front of the url, its pointless to use VPNs.
At least they have a cool aircraft carrier. Lol
If they warm it up it has to be towed home again lol.
Cool? Did they put the fires out?
Being able to transform into a makeshift submarine is pretty neat.
Lets be honest here
They dont even call it an aircraft carrier they call it somthing else soveits didnt build it for long term life
Plus russia can make aircraft carriers they built 1 to india and 1 to china but they arent intrested to build one for them self
The author correctly noted that the advancing troops should be covered with an umbrella of air defense. And for this, air defense means must be mobile.
Thank 😊 for being honest. I love ur videos 📹 because u are neutral sorce, there is not a single western propaganda in ur videos. Glory to u from South Africa 🇿🇦.
Um actually...I think you'll find the Russians are perfectly capable of shooting down defenceless civilian airliners.
Americans are also perfectly capable of using their expensive 5th Gen Raptors to drop expensive JDAMs on Taliban's donkeys lmao
The other thing is it worth tying to shoot them down with missiles if the drone is only going to hit a low value target it might be best to ignore it and hope soldiers can hit it with bullets.
A missile that can hit a moving target in the air is not cheap.
I'm just waiting for the return of birdshot shotties to counter drones lol. (PS I'm sure that's probably a bad idea, please no one go try that).
Some background sound in this video or something.
Yeah, Russia exaggerates their military capabilities (like everyone else) though it seems countries that have parades of tanks and goose-stepping soldiers marching down a major city square to remind their people of the power of the State exaggerate a bit more than others. That said, underestimating Russia is probably a bad idea.
Most nato systems seem to be severely underrated though. The advertised capabilities almost always are lower then actual capabilities they turn out to show on the battlefield. Or entire capabilities aren't disclosed at all sometimes until they are used in combat..
Nobody used to underestimate Russia's military, if anything, everyone estimated the exact opposite, at least they used to. However, now, I think we now know a LOT more about how "good" the Russian military actually is.
They overestimated russia, but now that we know what really they can do. There is no need to understimate, they are already as bad as it can get.
But even Nato countries do these parades...
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 It depends on national strategy, you can try to appear stronger and hope that you won't be attacked/enemies will give in to your demands, or you can undersell yourself in the hopes that anyone who does attack you will be underprepared because they thought you were weak. The one thing no one does is be honest.
Russia has always been an extreme example of the former camp
This goes both sides of any conflict: those systems arent designed to intercept swarms of cheap drones. In long term - as we saw with the Shahed - you need cheap countermeasures before going bankrupt with expensive missiles.
Speaking of swarm attacks, thats quite complicated in coordination. In that case, we yet have to see true swarm attacks. That concept will mature in futere and will again change the battle field. Russian SAM systems has not really been stressed to the limit yet.
Besides that, dynamics continue and we will see old and new countermeasures against drones. Electronics, cheap guns, anti-drone drones, etc. Its a continue race to gain and maintain the upper hand.
Have they tried Bolt action rifles?
Most drones are small and inexpensive that a single SAM missile is more expensive than a drone
that's one pov. and the target of the drone? is it worthy the cost of a sam per se? maybe it is. but it seems this continuing will be less sustainable for russia (even with all holes sanctions may have) rather than for Ukraine, as they will keep having NATO and other allies supporting them to keep stressing to the rupture point ruskie air defenses. Russia cannot produce not even in tanks as much as they lose per month, much less in other more sophisticated equipment - and, also, man power is now at is lowest and so the number of factories for such diverse and demanding procurement of equipments, many of which is beying destroyed in a rate well above of than they can produce. reason why russia wants to freeze the war or they'll be unable to defend what they still have (20% of Ukraine, they lost 5% of the 25% they had at one point) if they really can defend it. Time will tell.
Could unmanned jets drones be used as countermeasures against missiles?
Maybe in the future, yeah. Would be cool to see if an AI could aim/ steer the drones better than humans too.
Could you do deep dive of actual costs of war to Russia in US dollars? I mean, equipment, sanctions, humans leaving/dying, ruble value loss- everything.
lol sanctions? What sanctions? It's so called Nato's sanction on Russia and the result is that the British economy facing a recession right now lmao
The biggest problem with Russian AA systems is the same with any other Russian system.
Poor organization, poor communication, poor maintenance and poor soldier discipline.
With all those stacked against them it lucky when they get an interception right.
Sound like you know nothing beside ignorant and coping
You didnt think about the cost of missiles but they have shot down many drones or With EW.
lol here comes a Clowneski bot. No rubles for you
*THE situation is mostly opposite.*
Russia is shutting down the overwhelming majority of drones. However, it is not feasible to intercept all drones, hence some successfully hit. Just ask American military bases in the Middle East.
Ahh yes.... anything they take down is paraded around as much as possible.
And yet the drones they are able to show are few and far between.
Nah, most of the Russian stuff turned out to be trash or not exist at all. If that magic system does not fire at a missile flying straight at it, it's not some sort of 4D chess. It just simply does not work.
Bro we had Russians filming their screen on the air defense system to show their misses.
A soldier would not break OPSEC that hard unless they needed the footage to be public to show they are doing things correctly but the equipment is failing them.
Weird how they “do not work” and yet hundreds of Ukrainian drones are downed.@@NeuroScientician
Did the video actually show what you say?@@ChucksSEADnDEAD
Also those drones are making it to Moscow because they still have civilian airliners flying all across Russia and near Moscow. You can't just start blasting.
Russia's 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade had no such problem shooting down Malaysia Airlines Killing all 298 crew and passengers.
@@christophermarkee5445 Small oopsie, this is the reason im saying it. Not good PR
@@Basieeeetrue
A much wider area that can be penetrated as Ukraine finds out the optimal routes, longer range missiles are too expensive and short range intercepting is that, short range. Saudis were having trouble against Yemeni drones for the same reasons. You'd need to both have a very small area to cover and blank check like Israel to detect and shoot down everything.
Shooting down a missile and a drone is a different story. Missiles are often complex systems with high unit cost, while drones may be cheap including those with munitions for attack. Meanwhile, small drones may have less RCS by less metal components, and smaller size. It is also not cost effective to shoot down cheap drones for expensive air defense missiles. However, Ukrainian source report difficulties to counter jamming.
Any success by both parties is highly sensationalize, but any routine accomplishment is often overlooked by media or news
Unfortunately so. Ukraine seems to be doing a very good job attriting Russian artillery though, and acceptable job degrading Russia's air defence and electronic warfare capabilities.
Maybe you would be so kind as to look into how successful (or not) these efforts have been taking into account Russian abilities to replace losses of course? I would be happy to help if you need. I have some experience.
We have seen how Russian air defense have wipe off Bayraktar and Harm missile from the skies of Ukraine!..and also we have seen how Lancet drones have destroyed western air defense systems like IRIS-T, Aspide, Avenger, Gepard...among others.
What are you talking about?
True, but it's just a war of attrition that is hard to win: drones are far cheaper and even a 99% success rate against 1000 drones means 10 hits land. It's just not a favorable position for Russia.
@@rhodium1096Ukraine lost an iris-t radar last fall(which has already been replaced with a further 3 or 4 radars but no launcher has been destroyed yet. The video of the lancet hitting the iris-t launcher actually showed an iris-t decoy(evidence was lack of secondary explosions when the lancet hit the missile tube, which if real, should've looked like a fireworks display).
@@bud4792 Even pro Ukraine western media told that an IRIS-T was destroyed....also Spanish media told that an Aspide supplied by them was destroyed...so your coment is useless
TLDW, It is actually doing pretty ok.
Small drones, big country. It's no surprise that they can't spot them all.
Basically they know better than To shoot down inexpensive drones that do less to no damage
Did you forget that they defeated Germany during WWII and were the first army to enter Berlin? They also have hypersonic missiles that cannot be detected nor stopped. They also have the best submarines. MIG-25 was the fastest fighter/interceptor during its time. Give them some credit my friend. We were in Afghanistan for 2 decades and over 2 Trillion dollars, then we run as fast as we could and left everything behind. Our economy, our education, our infrastructures are a mess, yet we continue wasting billions and billions of hard earn taxpayer $ for a war that is lost before it started. We bet on sanctions doing the job and it back fired at us. Check what is happening is Africa and many other places across the globe.
Tell me, then, why has Russia lost more in Ukraine than the United States has lost *in every conflict it's participated in from Vietnam to now?* Because that's what the Russian casualties are looking like. In a little over a year, against a broke European backwater, they've wasted more men than America has in over half a century of warfare.
America is really good at the "fighting" part of a war. Where we fall apart is the "occupation" portion, otherwise known as "the hard part". Russia is still floundering at the easiest segment of a conflict.
Russia has already lost. Now, that doesn't mean Ukraine has won. But given the ridiculous expenditures, how isolated they've become from the rest of the world, the expansion of NATO, the utter kneecapping of Russian prestige, Russia has conclusively lost this war. Even if by some miracle they manage to hold onto some dirt, they still have to occupy it, with a native population who hates their guts and have a ridiculous amount of heavy weapons on-hand.
The best thing Russia could do would be to cut her losses and run. Otherwise, Ukraine is just going to be where impoverished, young Russian men go to be converted into fertilizer. They're going to have to leave eventually. All occupiers eventually do.